Anastasia marked 2 inline comments as done and 2 inline comments as done.
Anastasia added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/AST/Type.h:6512
+inline bool Type::isTemplateSpecializationType() const {
+ return isa<TemplateSpecializationType>(this);
+}
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> This is a sugar type. What are you trying to do?
I just need a helper function to identify this type in the addr space deduction
logic below. Do you think we shouldn't expose it as interface?
In fact I am now adding `isInjectedClassNameType` for the same reason to cover
another similar test case.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:7421
+ // - template specialization as addr space in template argument doesn't
+ // affect specialization.
+ (T->isDependentType() && (!T->isPointerType() && !T->isReferenceType() &&
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> I don't understand what you're saying here. Why does inference depend on
> whether the type is a template specialization? And what does this have to do
> with template arguments? Also, address spaces in template arguments are
> definitely part of the template argument and affect which specialization
> you're naming.
What I am trying to say here is that an address space of a template argument
isn't used as an address space of a template specialization and therefore we
can deduce the address space of a template specialization since it's not going
to be provided during the template instantiation.
Let's say we have specialization `MyClass<T>`. The address space of `T` has
nothing to do with the address space of `MyClass<T>`. They are different.
Therefore if the address space of `MyClass<T>` is not provided explicitly it is
ok to deduce it.
Does it make sense?
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:7421
+ // - template specialization as addr space in template argument doesn't
+ // affect specialization.
+ (T->isDependentType() &&
----------------
If you think it's reasonable the same would apply to `InjectedClassNameType`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64400/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64400
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
